Relationships 👩‍❤️‍👨

Question 1

Sexual selection

Answer 1

Evolutionary explanation for sexual partner preferences. Attributes that increase reproduction are passed through generations

Question 2

Anisogamy

Answer 2

Differences between male and female gametes (sex cells)
Sperm vs egg
Mobility
Size
Quantity
Amount of time produced for
Energy expenditure

Question 3

Inter sexual selection

Answer 3

Preferred by females
Quality over quantity
More choosy as they have less gametes
Want fit males who can provide

Question 4

Intra sexual selection

Answer 4

Preferred by males
Quantity over quality
Dimorphism- men are bigger than women
Want as many fertile females as possible

Question 5

Attractive body shapes

Answer 5

Men want hourglass, women want big and broad shoulders

Question 6

Evaluations of sexual selection

Answer 6

Strength anisogamy - research support, Buss, surveys 10,000 adults and found men cared more about looks and age when women cared more for assets

Strength - inter sexual selection, Clark and Hatfield, uni students “Will you sleep with me”, 75% of men said yes, no women said yes

Weakness - ignored social and cultural influences, Bereczkei et al suggested women are no longer reliant on men as they can work

Weakness - more complex, Penton Voak et al said women’s preferences change over the menstrual cycle

Question 7

Self disclosure

Answer 7

Revealing personal information about yourself, relationship formation is built on trust with another person. Leads to greater intimacy and satisfaction

Question 8

Social penetration theory

Answer 8

Altman and Taylor, gradual process of revealing your inner self to someone

Question 9

Breadth and depth

Answer 9

As both increase partners become more committed (onion)

Question 10

Reciprocity

Answer 10

Reis and Shaver, other should respond with their own personal thoughts. Balance of self disclosure increases intimacy

Question 11

Evaluations of self disclosure

Answer 11

Strength - research support, Sprecher and Hendricks studied straight couples and found correlations between self disclosure and satisfaction
Laurenceau found higher levels of intimacy with self disclosure

Weakness - correlation vs causation

Weakness - culture bias. Tang et al found more shared sexual thoughts in USA compared to china

Question 12

Importance of physical attractiveness

Answer 12

Shackelford and Larson found that peoples with symmetrical faces are more attractive (honest signal of good genetics)

Baby faces are attractive sure to look of caring and protective instincts

Question 13

The halo effect

Answer 13

Where one feature has a disproportionate influence on our judgement of other features
Dion et al found that attractive people were rated as kind, strong, sociable and successful

Question 14

Evaluations of physical attractiveness

Answer 14

Strength - research support halo effect, Palmer and Peterson physically attractive people were rated as more politically knowledgeable

Strength - research support matching hypothesis Feingold meta analysis of 17 studies, correlation between attractiveness in romantic partners

Weakness- complex matching, Precher and Hatfield, poor evidence due to other attractive attributes

Question 15

Filter theory

Answer 15

Kerckhoff and Davis studied student couples, three filters social demography, similarity in attitudes and complimentarity

Question 16

Evaluations of filter theory

Answer 16

Strength - research support, winch
it has face validity as it expresses most people’s relationships, Winch found that these filters were important in beginning and complimentarty long term

Weakness - failure to replicate, Levenger said it’s difficult to define depth of relationship in length. They said cut off point for short term relationships was 18 months but this doesn’t apply to all

Weakness - culture bias, some collectivist cultures have things like arranged marriages, this only applies to individualist cultures

Question 17

Social exchange theory

Answer 17

Thibault and Kelley

Economic
Commitment dependent on profit
Rewards should outweigh costs

Question 18

Comparison level

Answer 18

Judge whether someone’s worth being in relationship with
Use past experiences
Amount of reward you think you deserve
Link with self esteem

Question 19

Comparison level for alternatives

Answer 19

Someone weighs up potential increase of rewards from a potential new partner

Question 20

Stages of relationship development

Answer 20

Sampling stage - explore costs and rewards

Bargaining stage - exchanging costs/rewards

Commitment stage - costs/rewards predictable, more stable

Institutionalisation stage - partners settled

Question 21

Evaluations of social exchange theory

Answer 21

Strength - research support, Sprecher longitudinal study, 101 couples in US found CLalt was strong predictor of relationship success

Weakness - cause and effect Argyle argues people are dissatisfied which causes CLalt

Weakness - reductionism, limits range of real life relationships why do people stay in abusive relationships

Question 22

Equity theory

Answer 22

Walter et al

Economic
Both partners profit should be the same
Ratio

Question 23

Lack of equity

Answer 23

Inequity causes the under benefited partner to feel anger resentment and hostility whereas the other feels guilt shame and discomfort

Question 24

Dealing with inequity

Answer 24

Revise perception of costs and rewards and change accordingly

What once was a cost now feels like a norm

Question 25

Evaluations of equity theory

Answer 25

Strength - research support, Utne et al conducted study on 118 recently married couples on self report scales, been together 2+ yrs those who said more equitable were more satisfied Weakness - cultural influences, Aumer - Ryan et al found that individualist cultures cared about equity but collectivists preferred to over benefit. Weakness - individual differences, Husman et al suggested some were more sensitive to equity than others, some are benevolents who are willing to contribute more, others are entitleds who accept it

Question 26

Rusbults investment model

Answer 26

Development of SET satisfaction/commitment rely on three factors Satisfaction level CLalt Investment size

Question 27

Satisfaction and CLalt

Answer 27

Satisfaction level is based on SET comparison with alternatives is based on CLalt

Question 28

Investment size

Answer 28

Intrinsic investment - put directly in relationship tangible like money or intangible like energy Extrinsic - acquired together, tangible like car and intangible like memories

Question 29

Relationship maintenance mechanisms

Answer 29

Accommodation- promote relationship Willingness to sacrifice Forgiveness Positive illusions Ridiculing alternatives

Question 30

Evaluations of rusbults investment model

Answer 30

Strength - research support, Le and Agnew meta analysis 11,000 five countries all these factors predicted relationship commitment Strength - explains abusive relationships Rusbalt and Martz battered women in shelters, those returned gained more in relationship Weakness - Goodfriend and Agnew found it ignores future plans in investment as it’s oversimplified

Question 31

Ducks phase model

Answer 31

Ending relationships is a long process with four main steps 1. Intrapsychic - cognitive, admits dissatisfaction 2. Dyadic - series of arguments over time, two possible outcomes, determination to get through or ending 3. Social - break up public 4. Grave dressing - focus on aftermath, positive face, social credit

Question 32

Evaluations of Ducks phase model

Answer 32

Strength - real life application, Duck recommends brooding on the positives in intrapsychic phase Weakness - methodological issues, most research is retrospective people may not remember right impossible to measure when it first happens Weakness - incomplete model, Tashiro and Frazier found another phase post breakup reporting personal growth

Question 33

Virtual relationships

Answer 33

Reduced cues theory - Sproull and Keisler, computer mediated communication, less effective, depend on ftf cues to show emotion, leads to de-individualisation, blunt and aggression Hyper personal model - Walther, more personal quicker self disclosure, Bargh et al (stranger on a train) selective self presentation, sender can manipulate to seem more ideal Absence of gating - McKenna and Bargh better as there’s no gate that can get in the way like physical appearance social anxiety etc

Question 34

Evaluations of virtual relationships

Answer 34

Strength - importance of internet, Rosenfeld and Thomas, 4000 US adults, more likely to be in relationship with access to internet, 72% compared to 36% Weakness - lack of support for reduced cues, Walther and Tidwell say there are other cues in messaging Strength for absence of gates - McKenna and Bargh, lonely etc people were more likely to get into CMC relationship of these relationships 70% lasted over two years

Question 35

Relationships theories

Answer 35

SEC, equity, ducks phase model, rusbults investment

Question 36

Factors causing attraction

Answer 36

Physical attraction, self disclosure and filter theory

Question 37

Paradsocical relationships

Answer 37

Unreciprocated One sided Usually a celebrity

Question 38

Levels of parasocial relationships

Answer 38

McCutcheon et al et al Entertainment social Intense personal Borderline pathological

Question 39

The absorption addiction model

Answer 39

McCutcheon People form parasocial relationships due to deficiencies in their lives Allows escape Absorption - seeking fulfilment in celebrity worship Addiction - needs to sustain commitment by feeling stronger and closer to them my lead to extreme delusion

Question 40

Attachment theory of parasocial

Answer 40

Form due to childhood attachment issues Insecure resistant , more likely to form due to no threat of rejection Insecure avoidant as they avoid relationships altogether

Question 41

Evaluations of parasocial relationships

Answer 41

Strength - maltby linked types of personality to levels of para relationships. Links between entertainment social with extroverts, intense personal with neurotic traits and borderline pathological with psychotic Weakness - lack of support for attachment, McCatcheon, correlation between attachment and celeb workshop 229 participants, insecures likelihood no different to secure. Weakness - methodological issues, rely on self report, social desirability, cause and effect